Netflix Admits It Doesn't Really Care About Net Neutrality Now That It's Big

from the screw-you,-I've-got-mine dept

So if you've been watching the Trump administration's attempt to kill net neutrality, you've probably noted that one-time net neutrality supporters Google and Netflix have been notably absent from the debate, leaving small companies and consumers outgunned and outspent in the attempt to protect the rules. If you're a regular Techdirt reader, you'll recall that despite still favoring a reputation as a consumer ally, Google hasn't really given much of a damn about protecting net neutrality since around 2010 or so. Its interest waned even further once the company launched its own ISP, Google Fiber.

Netflix's blooming disinterest in the subject has been a more recent affair. In a recent letter to shareholders, the company made it clear it believes that now it's an international video powerhouse, fighting for things like an open and healthy internet and level playing fields are no longer a priority:

"Weakening of US net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable."

And while some tried to argue that this was simply Netflix trying to calm nervous investors, it's becoming clear that Netflix's apathy goes quite a bit deeper. Speaking at a conference in California this week, CEO Reed Hastings stated that while net neutrality is still important, it's notably less important to the company now that it's a big freaking deal:

"It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings said. It was a candid admission: no matter what the FCC decides to do with Title II, Netflix isn’t worried about its ability to survive. Hastings says that Netflix is “weighing in against” changing the current rules, but that “it’s not our primary battle at this point” and “we don’t have a special vulnerability to it."

You might recall that Netflix was singing a very different tune a few years ago, when reports began to emerge that giant ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter were intentionally letting their interconnection points congest in order to kill settlement-free peering and extract additional, duplicative tolls from content and transit companies. The move resulted in a notable slowdown for Netflix subscribers, who were quick to blame Netflix for problems originating at the ISP (New York AG's recent lawsuit against Charter for slow speeds includes some internal e-mails supporting these allegations).

The FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules didn't specifically prohibit this kind of chicanery, but they did allow the FCC to investigate anti-competitive behavior on that front on a case-by-case basis. And lo and behold, the mere presence of the rules did appear to magically resolve many of these disputes. But Netflix also had the cash on hand necessary to pay large ISPs like Comcast for direct interconnection, an option smaller companies may not have had the luxury to do.

And of course that's just the thing: net neutrality may not matter to Netflix now that it's big enough to go toe to toe with companies like Verizon and Comcast, but it's still damn important for the Netflix of tomorrow -- companies that will be forced to do business over already uncompetitive broadband networks as an axe looms over nearly all meaningful consumer protections. Hastings' message to these emerging entrepreneurs? Basically to figure it out for themselves because Netflix "done got theirs":

"The Trump FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says,” Hastings argues. He might believe that net neutrality is “important for society," but his company, Netflix, isn’t in trouble so it’s not going to get into the fight. “We had to carry the water when we were growing up and we were small," Hastings said. "Other companies have to be on that leading edge."

That's viciously shortsighted. Hastings is basically saying that keeping the internet healthy, level and open is no longer his problem. Granted there are several things driving this ignominious proclamation, including said interconnection deals and the fact that Netflix recently secured a deal with Comcast bringing Netflix to Comcast cable boxes. So in Hastings' mind, he's moved beyond net neutrality because his company was large and wealthy enough to pay for the luxury to temporarily resolve the threat. Problem solved!

But Hastings is dead wrong.

As we move to strip all oversight of the uncompetitive broadband sector, the door will be reopened to ISPs finding a litany of creative ways to abuse that lack of competition. That's going to get easier to do as cable providers grab a growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, expand arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, and use zero rating to drive users away from competing services. If Hastings thinks a viciously uncompetitive broadband sector with zero regulatory oversight ends well for anybody not named AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Verizon -- he's fooling himself. As is anybody else sharing his sentiment.

Sure, Hastings was clear that Netflix will still technically support net neutrality, but only via the occasional tersely-worded press release from lobbying and policy vessels. But if consumers are looking for real help in defending net neutrality, it's abundantly clear they need to start looking elsewhere, because Netflix now believes it's somehow above having to care about silly stuff like the internet fucking working properly.

Reader Comments

"I have signed a very solid deal with the wolves, the other sheep though..."

It's a good thing that Netflix doesn't offer a service that has a tendency to use up significant amounts of data, especially if multiple people in the same household are using it...

I mean can you imagine how stupid the CEO would look down the line if it turned out that the ISP's which he seems to believe are just so friendly towards him used that fact to bargain for a more 'fair and balanced' deal to secure zero-rating for his service, or slammed his customers with hefty overage fees if Netflix was counted against the increasingly prevalent caps and simply using it for any significant amount was enough to cause people to go over those limits?

He's not just throwing any future companies that might compete with Netflix in the future to the wolves, he's setting up shop in their den, sure that they'll treat him fairly now that he's bigger than before.

If it wouldn't be a sign of things going very poorly for everyone I'd be quite tempted to hope that his indifferent and short-sighted 'Not our problem anymore' attitude came back to bite him hard.

That's great that Reed Hastings believes Netflix is popular enough that the ISPs won't be able to materially affect his operations, but once they all have data caps, and demand more money to keep the data flowing, and require a separate Netflix data plan on top of basic internet, what does he expect his customers to do? Start their own ISP?

Re:

I think he made it pretty clear, how he believes things work.

As much as net neutrality detractors want this to say that Netflix loves it like Levitts, Hastings is playing the corporate bully and fueling that fire. Between the lines you can see that he is not a fan of what FCC is doing, but business is business and politics is business. By making it clear that others should fund the fight, he is also making a jab at the econo-political landscape, where he has given up the fight after seeing the same bad ideas reappear every year after the politicians have spoken to their big sponsors!

"Weakening of US net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable."

That seems very short sited from the company whose popularity is the main reason the ISP's are attacking net neutrality. Do they not realize that they are a cause of cable cutting, and to many ISPs that is a problem to be reversed by any means possible.

I win again...

Regulation is nothing but a friend to BIG business and an enemy to the common man and small business.

It has never been any other way, EVER! Sure, sometimes it sways from "fuck the little guy" to "sorry little guy" and back again, but it has always served the interest's of the Big Guy.

Netflix is now a Big Guy, and notice how they have changed? Kinda like how a bunch of tech companies yakked about their opposition to the bathroom bill debates? They are just mouth breathing shit they think will make their company look the best for the same reasons businesses were okay with racism in the past but now are not okay with.

It's just business and whatever they think will help business they will do. Including paying attention to or ignoring regulation or public opinion as they see fit.

Re: I win again...

You never suggest solutions other than "let the companies all do what they want, remove all the state and federal regulations and let the free market sort it out" though.I mean, sure, it'd be nice if that were going to happen, but it isn't. Ever.So... here we are again with the rest of us talking about reality and you talking about a magical fantasy land where the US isn't a shitheap of horrifying cronyism and corruption.I'm not sure where you think you're adding value to the conversation.

Re: Re: I win again...

Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Which is... what? This is pretty much all the solutions you've been giving:

Solution 1. Call everyone else an idiot for letting things get this far regardless of how much clout, influence or effect they had on the situation (or whether they're even an American citizen).Solution 2. Refer to Solution 1.Solution 3. Refer to Solution 2...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

So normal people in other countries get to tell American government what to do, vote people in and out of American government, and generally influence that government at a significant enough scale to effect change.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"So normal people in other countries get to tell American government what to do, vote people in and out of American government, and generally influence that government at a significant enough scale to effect change."

Generally no, but if you get powerful enough then YES!

There are a large number of people in other nations that have an indirect impacts on other nations of the world including the USA. Are they big? Usually not, but on rare occasion something they want does gain traction and people run with it.

So yea, we are not living in a closed environment despite what a lot of people ignorantly believe. It normally follows the numbers, which is why big businesses love you pro regulation guys. You are just busy giving it ALL away for nothing in return.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Many solutions have been suggested already, you just keep ignoring them and acting like they were never said.

And you keep acting like nobody has ever pointed out that every time you say this, you somehow fail to produce a single example of one of the "many solutions" that you keep insisting "have been suggested already."

Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Where have I seen this behavior before? O yea...

It's like the race card... you pull it out when you don't want to listen. Instead you stick you fingers in your ear and act like no one is talking.

Good plan, it helped keep Trump out of the Whitehouse didn't it? O wait... it helped get him into it! The more you continue to overplay your tired old hands the more people ignore you and just like the history you ignore, you become it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

I'm still waiting for the solution that ordinary citizens from other countries could have taken to prevent the Trump presidency. Maybe he thinks all the peasants in China could have sneezed loudly to cause an earthquake to bury the covfefe-wearing hot-air balloon in a landslide. Or maybe all of Asia could have somehow boycotted all his businesses... from another country... and caused some form of effect on his coffers...

Fuck, is this what it feels like to be a tool that repeats the same half-assed mockery over and over? How could one person put himself through this much brain damage thinking this shit up?

Re: I win again...

"It has never been any other way, EVER"

Except in all those other countries where this isn't an issue.

That's one of the most amusing things about your rants. You claim that regulation inevitably leads to this stuff. Yet, net neutrality is currently only a major issue in the US. Other countries, which usually have greater regulation, aren't having the conversation because they already have real ISP competition and rules in place to stop monopolistic abuse.

"They are just mouth breathing shit they think will make their company look the best for the same reasons businesses were okay with racism in the past but now are not okay with."

So, what are you saying? They should have kept their mouths shut and continued to support racist policies? Or are you saying it's wrong to support socially progressive policies if they're doing so merely to attract customers?

What specifically is wrong about companies supporting the issues that their customer base cares about?

"It's just business and whatever they think will help business they will do."

Yet, your only stated "solution" to the problem is to remove regulation and just let them do what they want. Brilliant.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"Your problem is that you "think" all of those other countries are in good shape but they are not"

This would be where you detail the problems, and your sources... Specifically how it relates to the ISP issue at hand.

"Just like how Greece looked good on the surface despite a festering boil growing underneath."

Only someone ignorant of the issues the EU have long had with Greece and the factors that eventually led to it being a problem would say such a thing. There was some severe opposition to it joining the Eurozone, for a start.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"This would be where you detail the problems, and your sources... Specifically how it relates to the ISP issue at hand."

World news? I dunno, you don't read?

"Only someone ignorant of the issues the EU have long had with Greece and the factors that eventually led to it being a problem would say such a thing. There was some severe opposition to it joining the Eurozone, for a start."

And yet the result was what again? Using an exception to combat the general rule is always a losing statement. The end result of what happened is not to be ignored. This is your teams problem. You care about the "intentions" more than what the results are going to be. And because of that, you open the doors very wide for corruption and elements that destabilize everything.

"This should be fun... What exactly do you think my "cause" is?"

Your cause is globalism and multiculturalism. The cause that foolishly thinks a King can save them instead of getting off their duffs and working to save yourselves. You cannot accept responsibility for the leaders you voted in, you cannot accept responsibility for yourselves... you need someone to save you because you cannot save yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"World news? I dunno, you don't read?"

So, you refuse to cite what you're talking about. Predictable.

"This is your teams problem."

You're also a "politics is a team game" kind of person. That figures. Your kind are particularly hard to discuss factual information with, because it doesn't often fit neatly into arbitrary team assignments.

"Your cause is globalism and multiculturalism."

Two questions:

1. No, it's not, but how did you come to that conclusion?

2. WTF are you blathering on about, anyway? This is a discussion of net neutrality rules and how countries that are regulated across the world (not just the EU, you're the one who brought that up) don't seem to have the problems you claim are inevitable.

So, are you going to stop your rant about irrelevant subjects and address the points at hand? Do you have anything to add to the specific discussion about internet regulation and its affect on net neutrality?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"No, it's not, but how did you come to that conclusion?"You do know that you can "unknowingly" serve a cause correct? The fruits of your labors help globalism and multiculturalism DIRECTLY.

I have isolationist ideas, I do not run from the label. I also have socialist ideas and I do not run from that label either. I also have conservative ideas and neither do I run from that label.

"So, are you going to stop your rant about irrelevant subjects and address the points at hand? Do you have anything to add to the specific discussion about internet regulation and its affect on net neutrality?"

The problem is that you do not see how all of this is interconnected, it makes you willfully blind.

The same problem that plagues the people with government and their inability to accept responsibility and to continuously endure evil is the core problem... A ROOT PROBLEM. Before we can solve the problem with corruption in government, we must solve the problem with the people that are RESPONSIBLE for their government.

Getting you to accept that... well lets just say... you need to have a LINK somewhere in the world that says you are at fault right? I would get you a link for that... but alas, I am too lazy. That, I also admit as well!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

I would get you a link for that... but alas, I am too lazy. That, I also admit as well!

But you aren't too lazy to write somewhere around twenty "almost paragraphs" about a topic not even discussed in the OP?! I have a different theory: you have no evidence, you have no links, and you certainly don't have critical thinking skills. All that you do have is an astounding ability to project your own biases and a "willfully blind" hatred of anyone who points out how idiotic your posts and ideas are.

The blind hatred of anyone "on the other team" is particularly pathetic. You remind me of a comment I saw yesterday (maybe it was you!) on an article about David Frum criticizing Trump. The commenter called Frum a "leftist" and a "liberal" and indicative of progressive politics as a whole. David Fuckin' Frum for god's sake. (I'm sure you're incapable of doing any research--since you've already admitted you're too lazy to inform yourself--so I'll go ahead and point out that Frum is a republican, a conservative, and was a speech writer for George W. Bush!)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

I did, and I came to a different conclusion than you did. This would be where honest debate takes place, but you would have to cite which specific part you're referencing, and what your sources are.

"You do know that you can "unknowingly" serve a cause correct?"

Oh right, so even if I oppose what you fear so much in reality, I'm still supporting them, I just don't know it yet?

That's a great way to troll, you can never be wrong. Good one.

"The problem is that you do not see how all of this is interconnected, it makes you willfully blind."

Go on then, oh sage master, educate me.

You won't of course, you'll just redirect the conversation away from any specifics that could enable people to prove you wrong, then attack people for trying to pin you down to something other than vague proclamations.

"alas, I am too lazy. That, I also admit as well!"

Too lazy to back up your own words, but not too lazy to pointlessly fill your screen with paragraphs of them, deliberately moving the conversation from the actual subject at hand. Almost as if you're not interested in the facts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"I did, and I came to a different conclusion than you did."

I am sure you have heard of brexit right? a member of the European Union breaking apart? Look at Le Pen, do you think that problem is just going to go away because they lost ONE election? If enough trouble was there to get that candidate into the spot light then something is up. Europe if falling the fuck apart... yea... I don't think you are reading SHIT!

He now regrets that. But that is how stupid you people are. You THINK you know so much that you walk around with enormous ego's and then bitch at and smack talk those who know better than you.

You cannot ignore you way out of this problem idiot!

Shit... I went and pasted a link...I don't care what you think you know and I don't care to waste time posting links to sate your ignorant ass. If you want to learn you will go an do it for yourself. No amount of links by be being posted will do any good. You lack the fundamental wisdom to understand the difference.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Yes. You've know that if you looked at my profile instead of railing against whatever convenient fantasy you make up, but that's too close to honest discussion for you.

1. WTF does that have to do with net neutrality?

2. You do realise that the US and the EU are not the only countries in the world, right? Why are you isolating them in the discussion about international regulation and the fact that the US is the only one seriously having a problem with NN?

"Look at Le Pen, do you think that problem is just going to go away because they lost ONE election?"

But, that election took place well after the Brexit vote. Why do you think that the Brexit vote is an indicator of a trend, and the fact that the right wingers lost France can not be the indicator of a trend? Seems rather inconsistent to me.

From my point of view, the Brexit vote won by a narrow margin, and the pendulum's swinging the other way now that people have realised its implications. Meanwhile, the spurt of right wing activity seems to be curtailed to a degree, though the general election next week will give a better idea of the real situation.

"Shit... I went and pasted a link..."

You pasted a link about a random comedian's opinion at a particular point in the past. How is that relevant to anything here? I agree that lots of people thought you wouldn't be stupid enough to elect Trump, but here we are. A comedian's opinion was wrong. That proves...?

You're ranting against a fantasy of what you wish opposed you, and refuse to address the conversation people were having until you started shitting all over it.

Sad, obsessive little trolls do not get respect here, so if you're so hurt about not getting it, I'd refer you to somewhere else. The real world and honest people are clearly not for you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Apples and oranges, though.

Not really, in both cases it is people in power saying they know what is best for the people, keeping their power and ability to control what information people can obtain. Also, in the US there is a high chance that politicians will call in favors so that they cn exert control over what is on the Internet.

Neither big business, or governments are comfortable, with the people self organizing, and doing things in a fashion where they cannot take their cut, or be sure that they get the taxes they think they should.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

"Neither big business, or governments are comfortable, with the people self organizing, and doing things in a fashion where they cannot take their cut, or be sure that they get the taxes they think they should."

That bears repeating over and over!This is the crux of regulation and why free market principles must prevail.

Regulation is a pseudo cure for consumer responsibility. Consumers MUST care about the businesses they give money or they lose. Just like how we continue to let corrupt politicians stay in office in detriment to our government functionality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Without regulation, who builds the expensive distribution networks, like roads, electricity, gas and data then? Or do you eant to return to a world where the rich have such things, because they are profitable to service and the poor have none because the profits there are poor or non existent?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

What you seem to think it was certainly is. You might wish to look into that world history you claim to have read if you need to know why regulation occurred in the first place. Hint: it wasn't because the government were jealous of the utopia created by the free market.

Re: Re: I win again...

boy are you missing the boat.

there are still tons of regulations, go read them.

there is NO LACKING here in the least.

When you put your big boy shoes and use the English language properly people might be willing to pay attention to you, but as things are now. You are directly helping these companies you claim to hate by letting them dictate your narratives! You are an unwitting patsy of Big Business who "claim" to hate regulations when they actually LOVE IT!

There is NO deregulation going on, they are just being changed to benefit consumers less. I warned you fucking clowns a long time ago during the Obama admin that your sycophancy for "regulation" was going to bite you in the fucking ass, but you didn't listen and ignored history. And you still are not going to listen so bend the fuck over.

You helped to create these problems in your pursuits to prevent them! Because you REFUSE RESPONSIBILITY for the things you do. You cannot be saved by government, the best you can hope for is an illusion of choice or liberty JUST LIKE EUROPE! Where the police still murder people in cold blood, where the Press are being fucked over and told what they can and cannot report, and where YOU or I can be snuffed out and NO ONE WILL CARE!

Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

You falsely equate regulations that hurt consumers as being the same as deregulation...

You falsely equate regulation as being laws that ONLY benefit consumers.

You are the willfully blind one! You sycophantically believe that government is going to serve YOU a stupid ignorant NOBODY over a business that pays them money, works out deals with them, lobbies with them, is in bed with them. I cannot feel sorry for you, I cannot understand why you remain ignorant while calling others the same. I cannot what part of human history and civilization has shown you that big government has not oppressed their people.

Please move to Venezuela because I heard they have the worlds best government regulations down there!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I win again...

Sycophantic? That's like the fifteenth time you've used that term in these comments. Did you just learn that one? Was it the word of the day on your 365 (More) Insults for Libtards calendar?

Anyway, you're not using it correctly. I haven't seen anyone flattering or sucking up to the government around here. I know you've already admitted that you're too lazy to look things up, but you might want to double-check the definitions of words that you're going to toss into every single conversation.

Re: I win again...

What, exactly, is it that you're so proud of telling people that you bring it up, all the time?

As I understand it, you "told them so" that, if the FCC can regulate a thing under the Obama Administration, it can later remove that regulation under some other administration.

In other words, elections exist.

So, I have a followup question.

When you made this observation, were you eight years old?

Because if people are not constantly patting you on the back for your deep and clever insight at noticing that elections exist, it may be because (1) they already knew that elections exist and (2) they assumed you were not eight years old.

Now, don't get me wrong. If you actually were eight years old when you made the observation that elections can result in changes to government policies, then you do deserve the attention and acknowledgement that you seek, because that's a pretty incisive observation for an eight-year-old. Hell, maybe even a nine-year-old!

So yes, let's everyone give Anonymous Coward the attention and recognition he deserves and craves.

Good job, Anonymous Coward. You explained to people that elections exist. You did, indeed, tell them so. And if you were eight years old when you did, in fact, tell them so, then you were a very clever and insightful eight-year-old indeed.

Re: Re: I win again...

I think his point in the observation/assertion you cite is more that "if you give the government the power to do X good thing when a party you like is in power, the government can also then do reverse-of-X bad thing when a party you don't like is in power".

I.e., that giving power to government is dangerous, and that you shouldn't give government authority on the basis of "I trust that you won't abuse this".

That principle is true enough and fair enough - it's just that he takes it to an unreasonable, unbalanced degree of absolutist extreme.

Re: Re: Re: I win again...

I think his point in the observation/assertion you cite is more that "if you give the government the power to do X good thing when a party you like is in power, the government can also then do reverse-of-X bad thing when a party you don't like is in power".

In other words, elections exist.

That principle is true enough and fair enough - it's just that he takes it to an unreasonable, unbalanced degree of absolutist extreme.

No, it's not just that, it's also that the argument "if you give the government the power to do X good thing when a party you like is in power, the government can also then do reverse-of-X bad thing when a party you don't like is in power" is totally unapplicable here.

This isn't a case of "giving the government the power" to not require net neutrality. Removing net neutrality requirements is exactly the same as not having them in the first place. It is the default position. It is, indeed, an example of the exact deregulation that he keeps advocating for.

Allowing the FCC to impose Title II regulations on ISPs did not grant the FCC the power to not impose Title II regulations. ISPs were already not categorized under Title II, before. This is not some new power that Wheeler granted to the FCC; this is a return to the pre-Wheeler status quo.

His argument -- that the removal of regulations proves that regulations are bad -- is absurd and self-contradictory.

Netflix learned nothing from over-the-air broadcasters

So the $5 Netflix Access Fee will be the new $3 Broadcast Access Fee? I can't wait for the ads from Netflix and the cable companies attacking each other and the Netflix blackouts that will occur until they come to an agreement.

New gilded age

So I guess this is the future we deserve. Tech giants using the advantages the open internet gave them to usurp power and market dominance, burning the bridge behind them, investing an increasing number of lobbying dollars, and deepening their ties with government and intelligence.

Re: New gilded age

Re: Re: New gilded age

How many people who purport to do this also hold Netflix subscriptions, Gmail accounts, Verizon wireless phones? Naturally, it's counter-productive to swear off technology, especially where little competition exists, but for most people a protest of strong words is the most they're willing to be inconvenienced.

Individuals need to be willing to hit these companies where it hurts, their bottom line, in order to affect real change. Otherwise you're tacitly supporting and funding these abuses.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New gilded age

If you're going to say 'Individuals need to be willing to hit these companies where it hurts, their bottom line, in order to affect real change.', and then object when Stephen points out what that would actually entail, just what did you mean?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New gilded age

Not really. His comment wasn't attacking a strawman, he was pointing out what that 'call to action' would entail when it comes to the ISP's, which is no internet, phone or cable.

You did note that it would be counter-productive to do so in some cases, one of which I would assume would be ISPs/internet, but that doesn't really undermine his counterpoint, so if that wasn't what you meant then by all means explain what I'm missing.

Sure they are big. What prevents the Comcasts of the world charging money big enough to seriously hurt their margins forcing them to increase their prices and become less attractive against services owned by Comcast itself? What if Comcast simply decides Netflix and all the rest just *won't* be able to buy into the fast lane making the services sluggish compared to their own offerings? Replace Comcast by any ISP and you can see how fast Netflix won't be big enough to absorb the damage.

"But the public backlash will handle it!" you say. Yeah, just like public backlash has made Comcast improve their customer service greatly. Just like public backlash prevents ISPs from being generally assholes and overcharging and doing very questionable things. I would be worried if I were Netflix.

Re:

>What prevents the Comcasts of the world charging money big enough to seriously hurt their margins forcing them to increase their prices and become less attractive against services owned by Comcast itself?

Netflix does a great job at providing a service people pay for. Comcast doesn't necessarily want the overhead of running a serious competitor. It may be more advantageous to run a mafia-style protection racket on Netflix, keeping Netflix's dominance while squeezing their profit margin relatively reasonably.

Re:

And who wins the next presidential election or the mid-term? And what happens if the companies do indeed abuse their position? Comcast have had no incentive to improve, but after Blackburn et al. has made it a partisan issue to remove regulations for ISPs, the ISPs have a reverse incentive to keep their abuse manageable lest they want to suffer a democrat in office.

If the issue is big enough to cause a roccus when you see the way both Pai and the media are treating it, is the real question and ½ to 1 millin potential voters says it does seem so.

which was made by the EFF and is a low transaction​cost tool for writing all your reps in one fell swoopand just a reminder that the FCC vote on 18th is to begin the process of rolling back Net Neutrality so there will be a 3 month comment period and the final vote will likely be around the 18th of August at least that what I have read, correct me if am wrong

So?

I really don't get this article. What's the problem here? Netflix believes that they have enough clout to protect themselves regardless of net neutrality, or lack thereof. They're probably right.

If they'd suddenly flipped to an anti-net neutrality stance I'd understand the outrage, but that's not the case here. Netflix has decided that it doesn't make sense for them to be on the front-lines any more, and that's their prerogative. It's not like people were donating funds to Netflix to fight for net neutrality; that's what the EFF is for.

Re: So?

Two problems. The first is that it's rather short-sighted:

"we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable"

*now* being the operative word. What happens in the future if that popularity is threatened? They seem safe now, but history is littered with the corpses of massive corporations who got complacent and failed to nip looming problems in the bud.

The second problem is that Netflix are in a position to do a lot of good, but are now saying "we've got ours, we'll let everyone else do the work now". As the poster child for how quickly disruptive innovation can change a market and how much that depends on a level playing field, it's a disappointing move (albeit understandable from a purely "let's keep the shareholders happy and not anger Trump kind of way").

"It's not like people were donating funds to Netflix to fight for net neutrality; that's what the EFF is for."

Some people may have been doing both - funding the EFF but also paying for Netflix over their competitors because of their openly pro-NN stance.

Re: Re: So?

Neither of which explains the vitriol in the article. Maybe this is short-sighted, or maybe Netflix just thinks that net neutrality is a lost cause, at least in this administration, and are exploring other options to protect their business. I'm not going to fault them for doing what they need to do. This isn't their responsibility.

It's pretty clear that Netflix still supports NN, even if it's only lip service. Of course, a couple of statements here and there by Netflix probably has more impact than my meager donations to the EFF and random rants on tech blogs. I'll take a tepid ally over a straight-up enemy any day. So Netflix won't be swooping in to save the day, does that invalidate the good they've done so far?

In short, disappointment I can understand. Anger and outrage, on the other hand, not so much.

Apathy Threshold

Netflix reached the threshold where they, and more importantly their shareholders, benefit from lack of regulation. The argument about the "next Netflix" proves the point. Once Netflix is big enough why would they encourage rules that would make it easier for a competitor to steal away subscribers? It's now in their best interest to hamper that kind of competition.

You might recall that Netflix was singing a very different tune a few years ago, when reports began to emerge that giant ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter were intentionally letting their interconnection points congest in order to kill settlement-free peering and extract additional, duplicative tolls from content and transit companies.

Even after all this you still haven't thought to take another look at what happened? Not wondering why Netflix was sending its data through transit networks was bad enough. Failing to investigate why one service got slow on a bunch of ISPs (and not just those you listed) at the same time is even worse. But at this point the only explanation for sticking to that explination is willful ignorance.